Complex software like applicant's SAP R/3 Release 4.5 (SAP) requires customization, e.g. selection of predefined functionality, and adaptation, e.g. addition of or amendment to functionality, as well as other servicing like program and data updates, cf. “SAP System Landscape Optimization” by A. Schneider-Neureither (Ed.), SAP Press, 2004, ISBN 1-59229-026-4, and “SAP R/3 Änderungs-und Transportmanagement” by Metzger and R6 hrs, Galileo Press GmbH, Bonn, Germany, 4th reprint 2004, ISBN 3-934358-42-X.
Before such servicing may be performed, however, it has to be assured that the customizations, adaptations, program and data updates etc. are free of errors and integrate flawlessly into the software and data environment. In a factory for instance servicing errors are bound to result in costly workflow disruptions due to software malfunction or data corruption. Apart from the servicing side, other use of the software like training of new or inexperienced users may also result in a disruption of the productive system.
Such complex software may therefore be implemented in form of separate logical systems that together form a system landscape. A typical implementation of the aforementioned SAP software for instance may, cf. FIG. 1, comprise a development system 101 for customizing and development work, a quality assurance system 102 for testing functionality using representative test data, a training system 103 for training new users, and several productive systems 104, e.g. each for a different factory, for actual productive use. Other or additional users and systems may be defined according to the particular requirements.
The logical systems are identical in large parts, function autonomously and may be run on a single computer. The quality assurance system 102 for example resembles the productive system 104 in that it provides all the functionality, its present data and additionally special test data. New customization settings or adaptations may thus be thoroughly tested in the quality assurance system 102 without jeopardizing the productive system 104. Likewise, the training system 103 resembles the productive system 104 in that it provides some of the functionality and special test data. A new user using the training system 103 may thus become accustomed to the functionality and observe the effect of his actions, albeit without disturbing the productive system 104.
A transport management system connects the logical systems and serves to forward approved services to the next stage of the system landscape via logical transport paths 105. A service may for example be approved in the development system 101 for export. It will then be forwarded to an input buffer of the quality assurance system 102. Import into the quality assurance system 102 is approved manually by an operator. Once the service has been imported into the quality assurance system 102, it will automatically be forwarded to an import buffer of the training system 103 and the productive systems 104 where it will be imported following manual approval by an operator.
The operator is in charge of manually assuring that no untested service is imported. For that purpose, he needs to manually compare a service identifier with approved service identifiers. This process is time consuming and bears the risk of errors.
The operator is also in charge of manually assuring that services are imported into their target systems only. A project like adaptation of the software to new legislation may require servicing of particular systems of the system landscape only. Presently, all systems simply forward the imported services to all other systems connected thereto. During the project, a considerable number of services may be required over a considerable period of time, and access to systems that are not affected by the project has to be denied manually by the operator for each and every service. This process is time consuming and bears the risk of errors. An automated way presently is to change system changeability parameters of each system on a project basis, e.g. to specify in each system whether it accepts services corresponding to a particular project. This, too, is time consuming and bears the risk of errors and requires authorized access to each system.
The operator is finally in charge of manually assuring that the services are imported in the correct order. The importance of the correct order is illustrated in FIG. 2a and FIG. 2b. An original version 201 of the software and data is first modified by a first service 202, resulting in modified version 203, and subsequently by a second service 204, resulting in modified version 205, cf. FIG. 2a. However, if the second service 204 is imported before the first service 202, the original version 201 is changed into modified version 206 by the second service 204 and subsequently into modified version 207 by the first service 202, cf. FIG. 2b. The modified versions 205 and 207 differ and the version 207 will not perform as intended.
In view of the fact that an SAP R/3 implementation may comprise dozens of systems and require thousands of services per month during phases of change, the operator time required becomes considerable as does the risk for errors to occur.